Western philosophy. He speculated and argued about "the Boundless" as
the origin of all that is. He also worked on the fields of what we now
call geography and biology. Moreover, Anaximander was the first
speculative astronomer. He originated the world-picture of the open
universe, which replaced the closed universe of the celestial vault.
1. Life and Sources
The history of written Greek philosophy starts with Anaximander of
Miletus in Asia Minor, a fellow-citizen of Thales. He was the first
who dared to write a treatise in prose, which has been called
traditionally On Nature. This book has been lost, although it probably
was available in the library of the Lyceum at the times of Aristotle
and his successor Theophrastus. It is said that Apollodorus, in the
second century BCE, stumbled upon a copy of it, perhaps in the famous
library of Alexandria. Recently, evidence has appeared that it was
part of the collection of the library of Taormina in Sicily, where a
fragment of a catalogue has been found, on which Anaximander's name
can be read. Only one fragment of the book has come down to us, quoted
by Simplicius (after Theophrastus), in the sixth century AD. It is
perhaps the most famous and most discussed phrase in the history of
philosophy.
We also know very little of Anaximander's life. He is said to have led
a mission that founded a colony called Apollonia on the coast of the
Black Sea. He also probably introduced the gnomon (a perpendicular
sun-dial) into Greece and erected one in Sparta. So he seems to have
been a much-traveled man, which is not astonishing, as the Milesians
were known to be audacious sailors. It is also reported that he
displayed solemn manners and wore pompous garments. Most of the
information on Anaximander comes from Aristotle and his pupil
Theophrastus, whose book on the history of philosophy was used,
excerpted, and quoted by many other authors, the so-called
doxographers, before it was lost. Sometimes, in these texts words or
expressions appear that can with some certainty be ascribed to
Anaximander himself. Relatively many testimonies, approximately one
third of them, have to do with astronomical and cosmological
questions. Hermann Diels and Walter Kranz have edited the doxography
(A) and the existing texts (B) of the Presocratic philosophers in Die
Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin 1951-19526. (A quotation like "DK
12A17″ means: "Diels/Kranz, Anaximander, doxographical report no.17″).
2. The "Boundless" as Principle
According to Aristotle and Theophrastus, the first Greek philosophers
were looking for the "origin" or "principle" (the Greek word "archê"
has both meanings) of all things. Anaximander is said to have
identified it with "the Boundless" or "the Unlimited" (Greek:
"apeiron," that is, "that which has no boundaries"). Already in
ancient times, it is complained that Anaximander did not explain what
he meant by "the Boundless." More recently, authors have disputed
whether the Boundless should be interpreted as spatially or
temporarily without limits, or perhaps as that which has no
qualifications, or as that which is inexhaustible. Some scholars have
even defended the meaning "that which is not experienced," by relating
the Greek word "apeiron" not to "peras" ("boundary," "limit"), but to
"perao" ("to experience," "to apperceive"). The suggestion, however,
is almost irresistible that Greek philosophy, by making the Boundless
into the principle of all things, has started on a high level of
abstraction. On the other hand, some have pointed out that this use of
"apeiron" is atypical for Greek thought, which was occupied with
limit, symmetry and harmony. The Pythagoreans placed the boundless
(the "apeiron") on the list of negative things, and for Aristotle,
too, perfection became aligned with limit (Greek: "peras"), and thus
"apeiron" with imperfection. Therefore, some authors suspect eastern
(Iranian) influence on Anaximander's ideas.
3. The Arguments Regarding the Boundless
It seems that Anaximander not only put forward the thesis that the
Boundless is the principle, but also tried to argue for it. We might
say that he was the first who made use of philosophical arguments.
Anaximander's arguments have come down to us in the disguise of
Aristotelian jargon. Therefore, any reconstruction of the arguments
used by the Milesian must remain conjectural. Verbatim reconstruction
is of course impossible. Nevertheless, the data, provided they are
handled with care, allow us to catch glimpses of what the arguments of
Anaximander must have looked like. The important thing is, however,
that he did not just utter apodictic statements, but also tried to
give arguments. This is what makes him the first philosopher.
a. The Boundless has No Origin
Aristotle reports a curious argument, which probably goes back to
Anaximander, in which it is argued that the Boundless has no origin,
because it is itself the origin. We would say that it looks more like
a string of associations and word-plays than like a formal argument.
It runs as follows: "Everything has an origin or is an origin. The
Boundless has no origin. For then it would have a limit. Moreover, it
is both unborn and immortal, being a kind of origin. For that which
has become has also, necessarily, an end, and there is a termination
to every process of destruction" (Physics 203b6-10, DK 12A15). The
Greeks were familiar with the idea of the immortal Homeric gods.
Anaximander added two distinctive features to the concept of divinity:
his Boundless is an impersonal something (or "nature," the Greek word
is "phusis"), and it is not only immortal but also unborn. However,
perhaps not Anaximander, but Thales should be credited with this new
idea. Diogenes Laërtius ascribes to Thales the aphorism: "What is the
divine? That which has no origin and no end" (DK 11A1 (36)). Similar
arguments, within different contexts, are used by Melissus (DK
30B2[9]) and Plato (Phaedrus 245d1-6).
b. The Origin Must be Boundless
Several sources give another argument which is somehow the other way
round and answers the question of why the origin should be boundless.
In Aristotle's version, it runs like this: "(The belief that there is
something Boundless stems from) the idea that only then genesis and
decay will never stop, when that from which is taken what has been
generated, is boundless" (Physics 203b18-20, DK 12A15, other versions
in DK12A14 and 12A17). In this argument, the Boundless seems to be
associated with an inexhaustible source. Obviously, it is taken for
granted that "genesis and decay will never stop," and the Boundless
has to guarantee the ongoing of the process, like an ever-floating
fountain.
c. The "Long Since" Argument
A third argument is relatively long and somewhat strange. It turns on
one key word (in Greek: "êdê"), which is here translated with "long
since." It is reproduced by Aristotle: "Some make this (namely, that
which is additional to the elements) the Boundless, but not air or
water, lest the others should be destroyed by one of them, being
boundless; for they are opposite to one another (the air, for
instance, is cold, the water wet, and the fire hot). If any of them
should be boundless, it would long since have destroyed the others;
but now there is, they say, something other from which they are all
generated" (Physics 204b25-29, DK 12A16).
This is not only virtually the same argument as used by Plato in his
Phaedo (72a12-b5), but even more interesting is that it was used
almost 2500 years later by Friedrich Nietzsche in his attempts to
prove his thesis of the Eternal Recurrence: "If the world had a goal,
it would have been reached. If there were for it some unintended final
state, this also must have been reached. If it were at all capable of
a pausing and becoming fixed, if it were capable of "being," if in the
whole course of its becoming it possessed even for a moment this
capability of "being," then again all becoming would long since have
come to an end." Nietzsche wrote these words in his notebook in 1885,
but already in Die Philosophie im tragischen Zeitalter der Griechen
(1873), which was not published during his lifetime, he mentioned the
argument and credited Anaximander with it.
4. The Fragment
The only existing fragment of Anaximander's book (DK 12B1) is
surrounded by all kinds of questions. The ancient Greeks did not use
quotation marks, so that we cannot be sure where Simplicius, who has
handed down the text to us, is still paraphrasing Anaximander and
where he begins to quote him. The text is cast in indirect speech,
even the part which most authors agree is a real quotation. One
important word of the text ("allêlois," here translated by "upon one
another") is missing in some manuscripts. As regards the
interpretation of the fragment, it is heavily disputed whether it
means to refer to Anaximander's principle, the Boundless, or not. The
Greek original has relative pronouns in the plural (here rendered by
"whence" and "thence"), which makes it difficult to relate them to the
Boundless. However, Simplicius' impression that it is written in
rather poetic words has been repeated in several ways by many authors.
Therefore, we offer a translation, in which some poetic features of
the original, such as chiasmus and alliteration have been imitated:
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
As is the order of things;
For they execute the sentence upon one another
- The condemnation for the crime -
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
In the fourth and fifth line a more fluent translation is given for
what is usually rendered rather cryptic by something like "giving
justice and reparation to one another for their injustice."
We may distinguish roughly two lines of interpretation, which may be
labeled the "horizontal" and the "vertical." The horizontal
interpretation holds that in the fragment nothing is said about the
relation of the things to the Boundless, whereas the vertical
interpretation maintains that the fragment describes the relationship
of the things to the Boundless. The upholders of the horizontal
interpretation usually do not deny that Anaximander taught that all
things are generated from the Boundless, but they simply hold that
this is not what is said in the fragment. They argue that the fragment
describes the battle between the elements (or of things in general),
which accounts for the origin and destruction of things. The most
obvious difficulty, however, for this "horizontal" interpretation is
that it implies two cycles of becoming and decay: one from and into
the Boundless, and the other caused by the mutual give and take of the
elements or things in general. In other words, in the "horizontal"
interpretation the Boundless is superfluous. This is the strongest
argument in favor of the "vertical" interpretation, which holds that
the fragment refers to the Boundless, notwithstanding the plural
relative pronouns. According to the "vertical" interpretation, then,
the Boundless should be regarded not only as the ever-flowing fountain
from which everything ultimately springs, but also as the yawning
abyss (as some say, comparable with Hesiod's "Chaos") into which
everything ultimately perishes.
The suggestion has been raised that Anaximander's formula in the first
two lines of the fragment should have been the model for Aristotle's
definition of the "principle" (Greek: "archê") of all things in
Metaphysics 983b8. There is some sense in this suggestion. For what
could be more natural for Aristotle than to borrow his definition of
the notion of "archê," which he uses to indicate the principle of the
first presocratic philosophers, from Anaximander, the one who
introduced the notion?
It is certainly important that we possess one text from Anaximander's
book. On the other hand, we must recognize that we know hardly
anything of its original context, as the rest of the book has been
lost. We do not know from which part of his book it is, nor whether it
is a text the author himself thought crucial or just a line that
caught one reader's attention as an example of Anaximander's poetic
writing style. The danger exists that we are tempted to use this stray
text – beautiful and mysterious as it is – in order to produce all
kinds of profound interpretations that are hard to verify. Perhaps a
better way of understanding what Anaximander has to say is to study
carefully the doxography, which goes back to people like Aristotle and
Theophrastus, who probably have had Anaximander's book before their
eyes, and who tried to reformulate what they thought were its central
claims.
5. The Origin of the Cosmos
The Boundless seems to have played a role in Anaximander's account of
the origin of the cosmos. Its eternal movement is said to have caused
the origin of the heavens. Elsewhere, it is said that "all the heavens
and the worlds within them" have sprung from "some boundless nature."
A part of this process is described in rather poetic language, full of
images, which seems to be idiosyncratic for Anaximander: "a germ,
pregnant with hot and cold, was separated [or: separated itself] off
from the eternal, whereupon out of this germ a sphere of fire grew
around the vapor that surrounds the earth, like a bark round a tree"
(DK 12A10). Subsequently, the sphere of fire is said to have fallen
apart into several rings, and this event was the origin of sun, moon,
and stars. There are authors who have, quite anachronistically, seen
here a kind of foreshadowing of the Kant-Laplace theory of the origin
of the solar system. Some sources even mention innumerable worlds (in
time and/or in space), which looks like a plausible consequence of the
Boundless as principle. But this is presumably a later theory,
incorrectly read back into Anaximander.
6. Astronomy
At first sight, the reports on Anaximander's astronomy look rather
bizarre and obscure. Some authors even think that they are so confused
that we should give up trying to offer a satisfying and coherent
interpretation. The only way of understanding Anaximander's
astronomical ideas, however, is to take them seriously and treat them
as such, that is, as astronomical ideas. It will appear that many of
the features of his universe that look strange at first sight make
perfect sense on closer inspection.
a. Speculative Astronomy
The astronomy of neighboring peoples, such as the Babylonians and the
Egyptians, consists mainly of observations of the rising and
disappearance of celestial bodies and of their paths across the
celestial vault. These observations were made with the naked eye and
with the help of some simple instruments as the gnomon. The
Babylonians, in particular, were rather advanced observers.
Archeologists have found an abundance of cuneiform texts on
astronomical observations. In contrast, there exists only one report
of an observation made by Anaximander, which concerns the date on
which the Pleiades set in the morning. This is no coincidence, for
Anaximander's merits do not lie in the field of observational
astronomy, unlike the Babylonians and the Egyptians, but in that of
speculative astronomy. We may discern three of his astronomical
speculations: (1) that the celestial bodies make full circles and pass
also beneath the earth, (2) that the earth floats free and unsupported
in space, and (3) that the celestial bodies lie behind one another.
Notwithstanding their rather primitive outlook, these three
propositions, which make up the core of Anaximander's astronomy, meant
a tremendous jump forward and constitute the origin of our Western
concept of the universe.
b. The Celestial Bodies Make Full Circles
The idea that the celestial bodies, in their daily course, make full
circles and thus pass also beneath the earth – from Anaximander's
viewpoint – is so self-evident to us that it is hard to understand how
daring its introduction was. That the celestial bodies make full
circles is not something he could have observed, but a conclusion he
must have drawn. We would say that this is a conclusion that lies to
hand. We can see – at the northern hemisphere, like Anaximander – the
stars around the Polar star making full circles, and we can also
observe that the more southerly stars sometimes disappear behind the
horizon. We may argue that the stars of which we see only arcs in
reality also describe full circles, just like those near the Polar
star. As regards the sun and moon, we can observe that the arcs they
describe are sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller, and we are able
to predict exactly where they will rise the next day. Therefore, it
seems not too bold a conjecture to say that these celestial bodies
also describe full circles. Nevertheless, it was a daring conclusion,
precisely because it necessarily entailed the concept of the earth
hanging free and unsupported in space.
c. The Earth Floats Unsupported in Space
Anaximander boldly asserts that the earth floats free in the center of
the universe, unsupported by water, pillars, or whatever. This idea
means a complete revolution in our understanding of the universe.
Obviously, the earth hanging free in space is not something
Anaximander could have observed. Apparently, he drew this bold
conclusion from his assumption that the celestial bodies make full
circles. More than 2500 years later astronauts really saw the
unsupported earth floating in space and thus provided the ultimate
confirmation of Anaximander's conception. The shape of the earth,
according to Anaximander, is cylindrical, like a column-drum, its
diameter being three times its height. We live on top of it. Some
scholars have wondered why Anaximander chose this strange shape. The
strangeness disappears, however, when we realize that Anaximander
thought that the earth was flat and circular, as suggested by the
horizon. For one who thinks, as Anaximander did, that the earth floats
unsupported in the center of the universe, the cylinder-shape lies at
hand.
d. Why the Earth Does Not Fall
We may assume that Anaximander somehow had to defend his bold theory
of the free-floating, unsupported earth against the obvious question
of why the earth does not fall. Aristotle's version of Anaximander's
argument runs like this: "But there are some who say that it (namely,
the earth) stays where it is because of equality, such as among the
ancients Anaximander. For that which is situated in the center and at
equal distances from the extremes, has no inclination whatsoever to
move up rather than down or sideways; and since it is impossible to
move in opposite directions at the same time, it necessarily stays
where it is." (De caelo 295b10ff., DK 12A26) Many authors have pointed
to the fact that this is the first known example of an argument that
is based on the principle of sufficient reason (the principle that for
everything which occurs there is a reason or explanation for why it
occurs, and why this way rather than that).
Anaximander's argument returns in a famous text in the Phaedo (108E4
ff.), where Plato, for the first time in history, tries to express the
sphericity of the earth. Even more interesting is that the same
argument, within a different context, returns with the great
protagonist of the principle of sufficient reason, Leibniz. In his
second letter to Clarke, he uses an example, which he ascribes to
Archimedes but which reminds us strongly of Anaximander: "And
therefore Archimedes (…) in his book De aequilibrio, was obliged to
make use of a particular case of the great Principle of a sufficient
reason. He takes it for granted that if there be a balance in which
everything is alike on both sides, and if equal weights are hung on
the two ends of that balance, the whole will stay at rest. This is
because there is no reason why one side should weigh down, rather than
the other".
One may doubt, however, whether the argument is not fallacious.
Aristotle already thought the argument to be deceiving. He ridicules
it by saying that according to the same kind of argument a hair, which
was subject to an even pulling power from opposing sides, would not
break, and that a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, placed in
between food and drink, must necessarily remain where he is and
starve. To him it was the wrong argument for the right proposition.
Absolute propositions concerning the non-existence of things are
always in danger of becoming falsified on closer investigation. They
contain a kind of subjective aspect: "as far as I know." Several
authors, however, have said that Anaximander's argument is clear and
ingenious. Already at first sight this qualification sounds strange,
for the argument evidently must be wrong, as the earth is not in the
center of the universe, although it certainly is not supported by
anything but gravity. Nevertheless, we have to wait until Newton for a
better answer to the question why the earth does not fall.
e. The Celestial Bodies Lie Behind One Another
When Anaximander looked at the heaven, he imagined, for the first time
in history, space. Anaximander's vision implied depth in the universe,
that is, the idea that the celestial bodies lie behind one another.
Although it sounds simple, this is a remarkable idea, because it
cannot be based on direct observation. We do not see depth in the
universe. The more natural and primitive idea is that of the celestial
vault, a kind of dome or tent, onto which the celestial bodies are
attached, all of them at the same distance, like in a planetarium. One
meets this kind of conception in Homer, when he speaks of the brazen
or iron heaven, which is apparently conceived of as something solid,
being supported by Atlas, or by pillars.
f. The Order of the Celestial Bodies
Anaximander placed the celestial bodies in the wrong order. He thought
that the stars were nearest to the earth, then followed the moon, and
the sun farthest away. Some authors have wondered why Anaximander made
the stars the nearest celestial bodies, for he should have noticed the
occurrence of star-occultations by the moon. This is a typical
anachronism, which shows that it not easy to look at the phenomena
with Anaximander's eyes. Nowadays, we know that the stars are behind
the moon, and thus we speak of star-occultation when we see a star
disappear behind the moon. But Anaximander had no reason at all, from
his point of view, to speak of a star-occultation when he saw a star
disappear when the moon was at the same place. So it is a petitio
principii to say that for him occultations of stars were easy to
observe. Perhaps he observed stars disappearing and appearing again,
but he did not observe – could not see it as – the occultation of the
star, for that interpretation did not fit his paradigm. The easiest
way to understand his way of looking at it – if he observed the
phenomenon at all – is that he must have thought that the brighter
light of the moon outshines the much smaller light of the star for a
while. Anaximander's order of the celestial bodies is clearly that of
increasing brightness. Unfortunately, the sources do not give further
information of his considerations at this point.
g. The Celestial Bodies as Wheels
A peculiar feature of Anaximander's astronomy is that the celestial
bodies are said to be like chariot wheels (the Greek words for this
image are presumably his own). The rims of these wheels are of opaque
vapor, they are hollow, and filled with fire. This fire shines through
at openings in the wheels, and this is what we see as the sun, the
moon, or the stars. Sometimes, the opening of the sun wheel closes:
then we observe an eclipse. The opening of the moon wheel regularly
closes and opens again, which accounts for the phases of the moon.
This image of the celestial bodies as huge wheels seems strange at
first sight, but there is a good reason for it. There is no
doxographic evidence of it, but it is quite certain that the question
of why the celestial bodies do not fall upon the earth must have been
as serious a problem to Anaximander as the question of why the earth
does not fall. The explanation of the celestial bodies as wheels,
then, provides an answer to both questions. The celestial bodies have
no reason whatsoever to move otherwise than in circles around the
earth, as each point on them is always as far from the earth as any
other. It is because of reasons like this that for ages to come, when
Anaximander's concept of the universe had been replaced by a spherical
one, the celestial bodies were thought of as somehow attached to
crystalline or ethereal sphere-shells, and not as free-floating
bodies.
Many authors, following Diels, make the image of the celestial wheels
more difficult than is necessary. They say that the light of a
celestial bodies shines through the openings of its wheel "as through
the nozzle of a bellows." This is an incorrect translation of an
expression that probably goes back to Anaximander himself. The image
of a bellows, somehow connected to a celestial wheel, tends to
complicate rather than elucidate the meaning of the text. If we were
to understand that every celestial body had such a bellows, the result
would be hundreds of nozzles (or pipes), extending from the celestial
wheels towards the earth. Anaximander's intention, however, can be
better understood not as an image, but as a comparison of the light of
the celestial bodies with that of lightning. Lightning, according to
Anaximander, is a momentary flash of light against a dark cloud. The
light of a celestial body is like a permanent beam of lightning fire
that originates from the opaque cloudy substance of the celestial
wheel.
h. The Distances of the Celestial Bodies
The doxography gives us some figures about the dimensions of
Anaximander's universe: the sun wheel is 27 or 28 times the earth, and
the moon wheel is 19 times the earth. More than a century ago, two
great scholars, Paul Tannery and Hermann Diels, solved the problem of
Anaximander's numbers. They suggested that the celestial wheels were
one unit thick, this unit being the diameter of the earth. The full
series, they argued, had to be: 9 and 10 for the stars, 18 and 19 for
the moon, and 27 and 28 for the sun. These numbers are best understood
as indicating the distances of the celestial bodies to the earth. In
others words, they indicate the radii of concentric circles, made by
the celestial wheels, with the earth as the center. See Figure 1, a
plane view of Anaximander's universe.
anaxfig1
These numbers cannot be based on observation. In order to understand
their meaning, we have to look at Hesiod's Theogony 722-725, where it
is said that a brazen anvil would take nine days to fall from heaven
to earth before it arrives on the tenth day. It is not a bold guess to
suppose that Anaximander knew this text. The agreement with his
numbers is too close to neglect, for the numbers 9 and 10 are exactly
those extrapolated for Anaximander's star wheel. Hesiod can be seen as
a forerunner to Anaximander, for he tried to imagine the distance to
the heaven. In the Greek counting system Hesiod's numbers should be
taken to mean "a very long time." Thus, Troy was conquered in the
tenth year after having stood the siege for nine years; and Odysseus
scoured the seas for nine years before reaching his homeland in the
tenth year. We may infer that Anaximander, with his number 9 (1 x 3 x
3) for the star ring, simply was trying to say that the stars are very
far away. Now the numbers 18 and 27 can easily be interpreted as
"farther" (2 x 3 x 3, for the moon ring) and "farthest" (3 x 3 x 3,
for the sun ring). And this is exactly what we should expect one to
say, who had discovered that the image of the celestial vault was
wrong but that the celestial bodies were behind one another, and who
wished to share this new knowledge with his fellow citizens in a
language they were able to understand.
i. A Representation of Anaximander's Universe
Although it is not attested in the doxography, we may assume that
Anaximander himself drew a map of the universe, like that in figure 1.
The numbers, 9, 10, 18, etc., can easily be understood as instructions
for making such a map. Although Diogenes Laërtius reports that he made
a "sphere," the drawing or construction of a three-dimensional model
must be considered to have been beyond Anaximander's abilities. On the
other hand, it is quite easy to explain the movements of the celestial
bodies with the help of a plan view, by making broad gestures,
describing circles in the air, and indicating direction, speed, and
inclination with your hands, as is said of a quarrel between
Anaxagoras and Oenopides (DK 41A2).
Almost nothing of Anaximander's opinions about the stars has been
handed down to us. Probably the best way to imagine them is as a
conglomerate of several wheels, each of which has one or more holes,
through which the inner fire shines, which we see as stars. The most
likely sum-total of these star wheels is a sphere. The only movement
of these star wheels is a rotation around the earth from east to west,
always at the same speed, and always at the same place relative to one
another in the heaven. The sun wheel shows the same rotation from east
to west as the stars, but there are two differences. The first is that
the speed of the rotation of the sun wheel is not the same as that of
the stars. We can see this phenomenon by observing how the sun lags
behind by approximately one degree per day. The second difference is
that the sun wheel as a whole changes its position in the heaven. In
summer it moves towards the north along the axis of the heaven and we
see a large part of it above the horizon, whereas in winter we only
observe a small part of the sun wheel, as it moves towards the south.
This movement of the sun wheel accounts for the seasons. The same
holds mutatis mutandis for the moon. Today, we use to describe this
movement of the sun (and mutatis mutandis of the moon and the planets)
as a retrograde movement, from west to east, which is a
counter-movement to the daily rotation from east to west. In terms of
Anaximander's ancient astronomy it is more appropriate and less
anachronistic to describe it as a slower movement of the sun wheel
from east to west. The result is that we see different stars in
different seasons, until the sun, at the end of a year, reaches its
old position between the stars.
Due to the inclination of the axis of the heaven, the celestial bodies
do not circle around the earth in the same plane as the earth's – flat
– surface, but are tilted. This inclination amounts to about 38.5
degrees when measured at Delphi, the world's navel. The earth being
flat, the inclination must be the same all over its surface. This
tilting of the heaven's axis must have been one of the biggest riddles
of the universe. Why is it tilted at all? Who or what is responsible
for this phenomenon? And why is it tilted just the way it is?
Unfortunately, the doxography on Anaximander has nothing to tell us
about this problem. Later, other Presocratics like Empedocles,
Diogenes of Apollonia, and Anaxagoras discuss the tilting of the
heavens.
Although there exists a report that says the contrary, it is not
likely that Anaximander was acquainted with the obliquity of the
ecliptic, which is the yearly path of the sun along the stars. The
ecliptic is a concept which belongs to the doctrine of a spherical
earth within a spherical universe. A three-dimensional representation
of Anaximander's universe is given in Figures 2 and 3.
anaxfig23
7. Map of the World
Anaximander is said to have made the first map of the world. Although
this map has been lost, we can imagine what it must have looked like,
because Herodotus, who has seen such old maps, describes them.
Anaximander's map must have been circular, like the top of his
drum-shaped earth. The river Ocean surrounded it. The Mediterranean
Sea was in the middle of the map, which was divided into two halves by
a line that ran through Delphi, the world's navel. The northern half
was called "Europe," the southern half "Asia." The habitable world
(Greek: "oikoumenê") consisted of two relatively small strips of land
to the north and south of the Mediterranean Sea (containing Spain,
Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor on the one side, and Egypt and Libya on
the other side), together with the lands to the east of the
Mediterranean Sea: Palestine, Assyria, Persia, and Arabia. The lands
to the north of this small "habitable world" were the cold countries
where mythical people lived. The lands to the south of it were the hot
countries of the black burnt people.
8. Biology
The doxography tells us that according to Anaximander life originated
from the moisture that covered the earth before it was dried up by the
sun. The first animals were a kind of fish, with a thorny skin (the
Greek word is the same that was used for the metaphor "the bark of a
tree" in Anaximander's cosmology). Originally, men were generated from
fishes and were fed in the manner of a viviparous shark. The reason
for this is said to be that the human child needs long protection in
order to survive. Some authors have, rather anachronistically, seen in
these scattered statements a proto-evolutionist theory.
9. Conclusion
It is no use trying to unify the information on Anaximander into one
all-compassing and consistent whole. His work will always remain
truncated, like the mutilated and decapitated statue that has been
found at the market-place of Miletus and that bears his name.
Nevertheless, by what we know of him, we may say that he was one of
the greatest minds that ever lived. By speculating and arguing about
the "Boundless" he was the first metaphysician. By drawing a map of
the world he was the first geographer. But above all, by boldly
speculating about the universe he broke with the ancient image of the
celestial vault and became the discoverer of the Western
world-picture.
10. References and Further Reading
* Diels, H. and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker.
Zürich/Hildesheim 1964
o The standard collection of the texts of and the doxography
on Anaximander and the other presocratics.
* Guthrie, W.K.C. A History of Greek Philosophy I, The Earlier
Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. London/New York 1985 (Cambridge
1962)
* Kirk, G.S., J.E. Raven, and M. Schofield, The Presocratic
Philosophers, Cambridge 1995 (1957)
o The above two works each have a good survey of
Anaximander's thoughts in the context of ancient Greek philosophy,
with translations of the most important doxography.
* Kahn, C.H. Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology. New
York 1960 (Indianapolis/Cambridge 1994)
o A classical study on Anaximander's cosmology and his
fragment, also with many translations.
* Furley, D.J. and R.E. Allen, eds. Studies in Presocratic
Philosophy, Vol. I, The Beginnings of Philosophy. New York/London 1970
o Contains many interesting articles on Anaximander by
different authors.
* Couprie, D.L., R. Hahn, and G. Naddaf, Anaximander in Context. Albany 2003
o A volume with three recent studies on Anaximander.
* Kahn, C.H. "Anaximander and the Arguments Concerning the Apeiron
at Physics 203b4-1." in: Festschrift E. Kapp, Hamburg 1958, pp.19-29.
* Stokes, M.C. "Anaximander's Argument." in: R.A. Shiner & J.
King-Farlow, eds., New Essays on Plato and the Presocratics. 1976,
pp.1-22.
o Two articles on some of Anaximander's arguments.
* Dicks, D.R. "Solstices, Equinoxes, and the Presocratics," The
Journal of Hellenic Studies 86. 1966, pp.26-40
* Kahn, C.H. "On Early Greek Astronomy." The Journal of Hellenic
Studies 90. 1970, pp.99-116
o Two conflicting articles on Anaximander's astronomy.
* Furley, D.J. The Greek Cosmologists, Volume I, Cambridge 1987
* Dicks, D.R. Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle . Ithaca/New York 1970
o Two good books on early Greek astronomy.
* Bodnár, I.M. "Anaximander's Rings," Classical Quarterly 38.
1988, pp. 49-51
* O'Brien, D. "Anaximander's Measurements," The Classical
Quarterly 17. 1967, pp.423-432
o Two articles on important details of Anaximander's astronomy.
* McKirahan, R. "Anaximander's Infinite Worlds," in A. Preus, ed.,
Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI: Before Plato, Albany 2001, pp.
49-65
o A recent article on 'innumerable worlds.'
* Heidel, W.A. The Frame of the Ancient Greek Maps. With a
Discussion of the Discovery of the Sphericity of the Earth. New York
1937
o An old but still valuable book on Anaximander's map of the world.
* Loenen, J.H.M.M. "Was Anaximander an Evolutionist?" Mnemosyme 4.
1954, pp.215-232
o A discussion of Anaximander's biology.
* West, M.L. Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford 1971
o A discussion of possible Iranian influence on Anaximander.
* Conche, M. Anaximandre. Fragments et Témoignages. Paris 1991
o The best book in French.
* Classen, C.J. Ansätze. Beiträge zum Verständnis der
frühgriechischen Philosophie. Würzburg/Amsterdam 1986
o The best book in German.
No comments:
Post a Comment